I've received new information to confirm that King County's large discrepancy between ballots counted and voters counted is an outsized anomaly.
As I reported earlier, King County's discrepancy of miscounted ballots, (considering both voterless ballots and ballotless voters) -- is on the order of at least 3,700 ballots.
Dean Logan did not dispute my numbers at last week's town hall meeting. At best, he might have explained some of the miscounted ballots with his claim that 250 of the unverified provisional ballots were paired with empty provisional envelopes from eligible voters. Even so, 3,400 miscounted ballots is still an outsized discrepancy and Dean Logan did not dispute that characterization either.
Now, two individuals who were closely involved in the 2000 election in King County have independently told me that the discrepancy between ballots counted and voters counted at the time of certification was significantly smaller than the 2004 discrepancy. One of them, a King County election official who worked on the 2000 election told me that the county-wide discrepancy that year was on the order of a "couple of dozen". Councilmember David Irons, who was on the canvassing board in 2000, gave me an exact number: 17.
17 vs. 3,400. Nevertheless, the official story from King County Elections has been that this year's discrepancy "is consistent with historic reconciliation rates for King County. In 2000 this number was 1,230" [I debunked that number in this post]. Meanwhile, other county audtiors shrug off this year's discrepancy as nothing to worry about. This lack of concern boggles the mind.
Comparing Counties to Counties, Apples to Apples
And even if you allow for the relatively large turnout and number of new voters in 2004, how did other counties fare this time? These are the other counties in the state for which I've seen (and previously reported) discrepancy counts:
| County |
Total Ballots
Reported |
Discrepancy |
Discrepancy % |
| King |
899,199
|
2,148
|
0.24%
|
| Pierce |
317,012
|
212
|
0.07%
|
| Snohomish |
297,187
|
282
|
0.09%
|
| Clark |
172,277
|
225
|
0.13%
|
| Stevens |
20,606
|
12
|
0.06%
|
| Jefferson |
18,772
|
6
|
0.03%
|
Even if we adjust the number of improperly cast provisional ballots to subtract the empty provisional envelopes found at the same polling places (a plausible source of innocent human error), the King County discrepancy is still by far the largest at 1,900 (0.21%) and the Jefferson County discrepancy goes down to ... 0
I reiterate my earlier report that Jefferson County has no unexplained discrepancy, except for 6 provisional ballots that were improperly inserted into the ballot box, paired with 6 empty provisional envelopes from the same polling places and submitted by verified eligible voters. Jefferson County Auditor Donna Eldridge even shared the relevant voter lists and reconciliation reports. After I pointed out another possible unexplained discrepancy, she had her staff investigate. They discovered that 9 voters were not properly credited, they corrected the problem and even faxed me copies of the poll book page that explained the crediting error. Now the numbers add up. Exactly. 18,772 ballots. 18,772 voters.
Even adjusting for county size, there can be no explanation for the fact that Jefferson had essentially no discrepancy, while other counties were off by hundreds. Well okay, there is one explanation: Jefferson County Auditor Donna Eldridge believes it's her job to ensure that the number of ballots equals the number of voters. Some of the other auditors, on the other hand, apparently don't consider that to be part of their job description.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 03, 2005
03:14 PM | Email This
When will I get to vote for King County Auditor? When, Mr. Sims, will you push this to be an electable rather than appointable position?
Posted by: bmvaughn on February 3, 2005 03:20 PMImagine this situation in the private sector. A small bank, like Hometown Savings, can balance their books exactly. Could a big bank, such as Washington Mutual, use their size and number of customers as an excuse not to be able to exactly reconcile their transactions? Nope - they'd be out of business in a New York minute.
Posted by: Larry on February 3, 2005 03:32 PMThey are hoping that by continually asking voters to "move along, nothing to see here" that they can get people to ignore their common sense that tells them the number of voters must equal the number of ballots.
Apparently this is not working because the polls continue to show that most Washingtonions are not impressed with King County's explanations of why vote totals do not match.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 3, 2005 04:03 PMI'd say the explanation for the huge difference is that 3400 is about what it took to stuff the ballot box in King County to overcome Dino's estimated lead in this race as the first count was drawing to a close.
Posted by: Michele S on February 3, 2005 04:14 PMWhile I honestly don't believe Sims called Logan on the phone and said stuff a ballot box so Chris wins by 129 votes, it is beginning to look like something really strange happened that might not be on the up and up. I think that the Discovery process in this proceeding could get very very interesting and shocking for the general public and democratic party supporters.
Now, to answer the question.... "Could a big bank, such as Washington Mutual, use their size and number of customers as an excuse not to be able to exactly reconcile their transactions?"
Well, yes if they could find enough former Aurthor Anderson accountants! (at least for a while)
Posted by: Bob on February 3, 2005 04:27 PMI am overwhelmed with anger at the way the KingCo "GANG" has tried to minimize their gross incompetence. Logan & Huennekens have had many chances to come clean. Perhaps they truly believe what they have done is acceptable...although I doubt it. It comes down to character...bottom-line. The Abbott & Costello of elections were faced with a moral dilemma. Confess the problems...or minimize, margialize and cover-up. Other auditors, lead by the CORKSTRESS (Corky Mattingly of Yakima and President of the County Auditors Assoc.), went so far as to try and orchestrate that infamous "circle the wagons" letter of support for Logan. WHY??? Because many of these other Auditors (ie "Sideshow Bob" Terwilliger) also were incompetent. They tried to stick together. Donna Eldridge and others REFUSED to do that.
Can you folks imagine other Auditors attesting to Dean Logan's performance WITHOUT EVER EVEN LOOKING AT WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID?????
After all of this, Sam Reed appoints Logan to an Election Reform Committee. Well F*** ME!!!
If this issue wasn't so darn important, I would probably laugh....but I can't. It's pathetic.
Maybe we can film the November, 2005 Governor Race and make a new TV Reality Show out of it.
Let's sign up the entire cast of characters.
We need a catchy name for it:
How about: Election...or Erection!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 3, 2005 04:43 PMThis makes Gregoire's victory even more certain and shows her winning margin to now be close to 4,000.
On behalf of all Democrats in the state, thank you.
Posted by: Nelson on February 3, 2005 04:45 PMLogan has repeatedly blamed a lack of resources as the core of his problems. Did Logan make his superiors, Sims & the County Council aware of this? If he did, then they are clearly culpable..big-time.
If not, then it is all on Logan.
The buck has got to stop somewhere. I believe the Budget documents will clearly show who is at fault.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 3, 2005 05:06 PMAnd it is election day only where you have potential issues of PollBook signatures vs. votes cast.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 3, 2005 05:22 PMYour comment makes about as much sense as Nelson's. The underlying assumptions are completely flawed. Are you implying that the ballots without voters go to certain candidates in the same proportion as the overall vote? Highly suspect...at best.
It's the same mental gymnastics that says that the illegal votes are split along the same proportions as legal votes.
I think the whole point of Stefan's work and our insistence on a revote is - if King County balanced their books accurately, we'd KNOW who won. They didn't and we don't.
Posted by: Larry on February 3, 2005 05:33 PMYou've done a great service for Democrats by coming to this conclusion. Since it's obvious that Democrats didn't need any extra votes to carry King County by huge majorities, it is an absolute certainty that if your data is correct, then every single one of those questionable votes that you claim existed were definitely cast for Rossi.
This makes Gregoire's victory even more certain and shows her winning margin to now be close to 4,000.
And, this was Posted by Paul R. Lehto at February 3, 2005 05:22 PM --
In the flawed counties you cite, Rossi improved on election day over absentees.
And it is election day only where you have potential issues of PollBook signatures vs. votes cast.
So, when can we get the Democrats to order the auditors to show us the reconciliations of those poll book signatures and the ballots in the precinct boxes?
It was required by the SecState in the rules he issued in August 2004, so they don't even need to create a record in order to satisfy the request -- unless, of course, they didn't reconcile those numbers precinct by precinct before certifying their returns.
Well, there is another possibility: They did the reconciliation in King County, but buried the fact that the numbers showed clearly that there were more ballots than signatures.
Let's dig it up! I'm not at all afraid of finding out what the source documents (precinct poll books, absentee ballot envelopes, and ballots) will show about the probability that the votes on ballots which were not legally cast were counted.
If there were 2000 or 3000 of such invalid ballots that found their way into the count, then the election ought to be set aside.
If the Democrats want to imagine that Rossi supporters found some way to get past the Democrats in King County or elsewhere in order to stuff the ballot boxes, they are free to do so. But the fact of the matter is that no one other than the person or persons who put such ballots into the count could know for whom the votes on those ballots were cast.
Posted by: Micajah on February 3, 2005 05:38 PMThe fact that Rossi "did better" on election day would be important if you presumed these excess ballots were evenly spread. But what about the contention that these extra ballots were not only NOT evenly spread.....but were actually the result of BALLOTBOX STUFFING????
If you cannot identify the voter, why wouldn't BALLOTBOX STUFFING be just as likely as anything else?
I think it is more important to show that County's can and should reconcile vs. worry that the Court may somehow rule that it decreases some possible ballot allocation to Rossi.
My 2 cents--
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 3, 2005 05:38 PMThe late Sen J.T. Quigg once told me, somewhat tongue in cheek, "The only problem with Republicans in power is that they run government effeciently." Of course, the implications of J.T.'s humor don't apply to the auditor, who occupies a truly necessary governmental function where efficiency is of utmost value.
Posted by: Gary Preble on February 3, 2005 06:35 PMWrong, If they cant find a legit voter for those extra ballots they are not LEGAL Votes.....But of course the Dem's aren't saying anything, because that would prove they are listening, and might have to actually agree or acknowledge a concept so simple and logical.
In less than 24 hours they(Dem's) may be made to listen, and I hope the MSM does the same, because both have been pathetic in acknowledging any of blatent "mistakes" (dem's definition) made by King county and other counties as well.
Posted by: Chris on February 3, 2005 06:59 PM3,700 ballots!! And this is just the number of miscounted ballots!
Add to that - the number of people who registered to vote at county buildings and PO Boxes, with questionable eligibility, (ie; illegal aliens, out of state residents, foreign residents...etc..) and the number of ballots that shoudn't have been counted could possible increase by another thousand!
Incredible!
Posted by: Deborah on February 3, 2005 08:12 PMSpreaing the word nationally on inept and incompetent bureaucrats who call themselves Auditors/Election Officials.
Posted by: Norm on February 3, 2005 08:32 PMRecall what was reported in the January 7 edition of the Seattle Times:
>>>
King County Elections Director Dean Logan concedes there were mistakes made with provisional ballots. He said there may be as many as 350 that were improperly put in the vote-counting machine.
But, he said, it would be wrong to “come to a conclusion that those were invalid votes that would have tipped this election.”
He said that up to 90 percent of provisional ballots countywide were found to be valid in this year’s election, so only a small percentage of the 350 are likely illegitimate votes.
>>>
Now consider his recent admission that only 250 of the 348 ballots were valid. Assuming that Mr. Logan's numbers are correct, the actual percentage turns out to be 28 percent, not 10 percent. (Is 28 percent a "small percentage"?)
Mr. Logan admitted that 98 illegitimate ballots were counted! And this represents only 348 ballots; thousands of others in King County have yet to be explained. And hundreds more were cast illegally, such as by felons who did not have their rights restored, dead people, non-residents, and double voters.
Among those provisional ballots that were incorrectly fed through the vote counting machines, a much larger percentage turned out to be illegitimate than of the provisional ballots that were properly placed into provisional envelopes.
This clearly indicates that something else was going on with regard to the provisional ballots that were fed directly into the machines, as opposed to the provisional ballots that were placed in provisional envelopes.
This particular issue would be moot, had the King County Elections Department provided provisional ballots that were distinguishable from normal polling place ballots, so that such ballots could be segregated in the event that they were mixed together (deliberately or otherwise). Other counties did this; King County did not.
Posted by: Tim B. on February 3, 2005 09:16 PMMagically appearing provisional ballots and far more ballots than voters .... it adds up to an obvious conclusion.
Someone in King County threw the election to GreGore.
Silly Seattle is so PC that everyone acts like that is a horrible thing to say. Oh the horror.
The PC thing to do is talk about errors. I'm gonna keep calling it fraud. Tell me that this happened in Spokane and by the third recount they found enough ballots for Rossi to win, and I'd be calling that fraud too.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 3, 2005 09:29 PMIf they can't match voters with votes, then as far as I'm concerned, THAT'S WHAT IT IS!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 3, 2005 09:47 PM(One that fit this description was rude as heck to me when I went by to pick up my mail in ballot. I guess I looked to "normal" to her.)
I bet that on a daily basis you commit violence against women. You probably even voted for Bush!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 3, 2005 09:59 PMConsider also prior history: Does anyone know what Snohomish County's or Jefferson or King County's history has been in terms of balanced books?
Also, consider that just because books balance means that the number of positive errors may have canceled out the amount of negative errors, but you could still have error all over the place.
Also, the suggestion has been made that the two extra votes (for example) are "illegal" votes. Pure question: is that just an argument being made, or is there a specific WAC or RCW that says there is a CONSEQUENCE when signatures don't equal votes (I know there was supposed to be that reconciliation per the emergency August 04 WACs, I'm wondering what the rules or system were in the past when there were more votes than signatures or vice versa)
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 3, 2005 10:56 PMThe salient issue is the quality of the counting. Product control. One has it, some of the others don't. The whole point is that the quality of the counting/system/integrity is apples an oranges. Nothing specific about the demographics or eventual split of the voters.
One is has an inner drive for competance and accuracy. The others don't.
Quit splitting hairs. If a vote is bad it should not count. How on earth can you quibble about that?
At least make an attempt to stick to the issues. The people here, well the non-trolls anyway, have made it clear that the goal is a fair and honest election, not to be dogmantic shills with the ends justifying the means.
Jeeze, a good shrink would make mincemeat outta the Dems positions on this junk. Probably start 'em out on meds.
Posted by: scott158 on February 4, 2005 12:16 AMAlso, the suggestion has been made that the two extra votes (for example) are "illegal" votes. Pure question: is that just an argument being made, or is there a specific WAC or RCW that says there is a CONSEQUENCE when signatures don't equal votes (I know there was supposed to be that reconciliation per the emergency August 04 WACs, I'm wondering what the rules or system were in the past when there were more votes than signatures or vice versa) [Emphasis added.]
The use of the signatures in poll books as a means of knowing whether invalid ballots have been put into the ballot box is as old as the hills:
Hill v. Howell, 70 Wash. 603, 127 Pac. 211 (1912).
http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/wareports/wareportsstate/070washreport/070washreport0603.htm
At 70 Wash. 611:
“But counsel argue that the vote of the precinct ought to
be rejected because of the fact that the polls were closed for
the noon hour, without any guard over the ballot boxes.
But it is not shown that harm resulted from this fact. The
door of the building in which the ballot boxes were left was
locked during the interim, and there is absolutely no proof
that the ballot boxes were in any manner disturbed. On the
contrary, proofs or inferences are all the other way. By the
statute, poll lists are required to be kept by the election
officers, and the returns of the election should show a name of
an elector for each ballot in the ballot box. There is no claim
that there was any discrepancy in the returns in this respect,
and this fact precludes the idea that the ballot boxes were
tampered with during the absence of the election officers.”
Apparently, very few county elections officials understand the purpose for those signatures.
To answer your question specifically: Until the SecState finally got around to issuing regulations in August that told the auditors what common sense would have told them, I don’t think there was any regulation. At least, I haven’t found one.
I read through WAC Title 434 Chapters 253 and 261 and found no specific mention of counting the signatures in the poll book as part of the method of determining how many ballots were issued. (The reg’s do require that they determine the number of ballots issued.)
Here in my county, the auditor’s instructions tell the precinct workers to count the signatures as part of the ballot accountability process – but then no one at the counting center is required to double-check the count claimed by the precinct workers.
The August rules were published in the Washington State Register:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/wsr/2004/18/04-18-028.htm (URL provided for the benefit of anyone in Snohomish County or elsewhere who has not yet found those rules)
While the rules didn’t say “Count the danged signatures, you idiots!!!” as part of the initial requirement to determine how many ballots were issued, they did say to “recount” the signatures if a discrepancy in the numbers appears to exist. Of course, there couldn’t be a “recount” unless there had been a “count,” but apparently there are auditors who don’t have the cognitive ability to realize that. (Yeah, I’m disgusted with them, and I won’t hide it.)
Finally, after the general election, the SecState got around to proposing precise instructions for the ballot accountability form – which perhaps can substitute for the total absence of common sense among the county elections officials, if anyone can find a way to force them to read and follow the rules that are eventually issued. (I’ve found that the least reliable source of information about the rules governing a bureaucrat’s job is the bureaucrat. Bureaucrats don’t read the rules. They simple-mindedly do things “the way we’ve always done them” – meaning they do what they recall having been told by their predecessors, and don’t do what they’ve forgotten or weren’t told.)
Here’s the proposal for WAC 434-253-160 and WAC 434-253-165 regarding ballot accountability forms (among other things) which was filed in late December 2004:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/wsr/2005/01/05-01-208.htm
There was one WAC provision in effect in November that covers a similar kind of circumstance, that is, a situation in which the physical evidence indicates that the ballots from a precinct may be of questionable validity:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/WAC/index.cfm?section=434-261-040&fuseaction=section
“WAC 434-261-040 Receipt of ballots at the counting center. Immediately upon the receipt of voted ballots in transfer containers from the polling places or collection stations, the seal or lock on each ballot container shall be examined to ensure that it is intact. The precinct....”
“If no seal exists, or if a discrepancy is noted between the information recorded on the transmittal sheet and the seal, the county auditor shall immediately be notified. The nature of the discrepancy shall be entered on the receipt log, the container set aside, and the ballots contained therein not tallied until the discrepancy is resolved. The log shall list the precinct, the nature of the discrepancy, and the corrective action taken. If the county auditor cannot resolve the discrepancy or arrive at a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy, the ballots shall be treated as ballots for which a question of validity has arisen, and shall be set aside and referred to the canvassing board for their consideration as provided by law or administrative rule (see chapter 434-262 WAC).”
So, part of the common sense which once was used to determine whether the ballots from a precinct polling place may be of questionable validity is spelled out in the rules.
Another – counting the signatures of the presumably eligible voters who signed the poll books before being issued ballots – has apparently been forgotten by many elections officials; but it may be forced on them by regulation in the near future.
Eventually, there may be painfully detailed and lengthy rules governing every conceivable situation, and a way to force the elections officials to follow the rules. Then, perhaps those rules can make up for the lack of common sense.
In the meantime, the contested election must be decided based on the evidence, not based on any absence of a specific rule to make up for any ignorant or dull election official’s failure to apply common sense in determining whether the ballots on which the votes are about to be counted were cast legally.